Not very successful war so far
While the mainstream media keeps repeating propaganda, it’s pretty obvious the war is not going exactly as planned (not that any war ever did).
First, the war seems to have started prematurely when a ‘window of opportunity’ opened to hit Saddam Hussein himself. All evidence so far suggests that this attack was a failure (no definite evidence, though, but provoking Saddam to prove himself alive may well be a ploy to pinpoint him again).
Second, we heard that Saddam’s army would surrender in droves. Considering its sorry state, it speaks volumes about the sentiments within the Iraqi army that even the most ill-equipped, outgunned forces put up resistance. Sure, we have surrenders, but not on a significant scale.
Third, we are hearing a lot about how this war will be gentle on civilians. How on earth does this combine with Rumsfeld’s promise of a ‘shock and awe’ (groan already) destructive attack on Baghdad, a city with millions of civilians?
Fourth, why doesn’t mainstream media ask these questions? Journalists seem to ask no hard questions, they just propagate jaw-dropping images as pure entertainment.
The US propaganda war, on the other hand, has been immensely successful.
I don’t doubt the outcome of this war, but what seems pretty obvious is that coaltion intelligence on Iraq has been very bad. That has been demonstrated with the Bush administration’s countless gaffes in the attempt to provide a ‘smoking gun’ on Iraqi non-compliance. And it keeps being demonstrated in the early phase of this war.